12 comments:

Does the other guest really believe that the reason for Imus' outburst was because there aren't enough minorities in media operations? I'm not sure I understand how racial diversity in the boardroom or the editorial board has anything to do with this.

It's really quite frightening to imagine that there are people who really believe that elections can be bought. That proposition cannot be maintained when you have a secret ballot and cheap internet access. Of course, whether Tony is aware of it or not, I suspect his real motivation lies in his "grassroots" comment - his problem isn't the mechanism of elections, it's the results, and he no doubt deeply believes that public financing would produce better results, even if that belief in better outcomes surfaces from his subconscious in the form of better process.

He got totally skewered a few times by Ann - he wants the war to fail, so he greets all bad news with giddy enthusiasm, slotting it into his preexisting argument; his risible suggestion that best thing for the Bush administration is to bend over and invite Congress to do its worst. I was reminded of one columnist's observation that watching Justice Scalia at oral argument is like watching a big cat bat around a ball of yarn.

Sadly, he isn't the worst guest they've put up against you, but it scarcely seems a challenge.

Simon, I hope this is the only blog you post comments on, because otherwise, given the number you post here, I'd would probably conclude you don't ever stray more than five feet from the computer (I'll leave aside addressing the "substance" of your comments).

Ann, a couple of good comments today on WPR, but I can see why people slap the "conservative" label on you. This doesn't apply to all your comments, certainly, but on occassion you were using Republican talking points (see, e.g., "micro-managing the war"). That's not to say you agree or disagree with those points, but merely their use in a point-counter-point suggests agreement (as does being the counter-point to the liberal).

It seems to me that Giuliani's position on abortion is only incoherent to someone who believes Roe is the only thing keeping abortion legal. But to anyone who understands that overruling Roe will not criminalize abortion, but rather will make it possible for such laws to exist subject to the normal democratic process, Giuliani's position makes a lot more sense. Just because I believe that the Constitution doesn't decide the abortion issue, and leaves the issue to the states and their ballot boxes, that says only that government has the power to make a certain law, a very different matter from saying that government should therefore use that power. If Guiliani shares my view on whether states have that power, I don't mind that he disagrees with me over whether they should use it.

With all that having been said, I had understood Giuliani's position to be that while he is in favor of legal abortion - as a state legislator he would vote against a law banning abortion, as President he would veto such a law - but that he doesn't necessarily agree that Roe was correctly decided. I heard him to say that abortion was a right, not that it was a right protected by the Constitution of the United States. That is, while he would resist laws banning abortion, he would appoint judges who would make it a relevant question whether he'd resist such laws, because such laws could then exist. On that understanding, notwithstanding our differences, I can and would support Giuliani. But if what I understood to be Ann's characterization of Guiliani's position is correct, if I shared what I think is her view that he'd appoint judges who would uphold Roe, then I think Brian's correct the complexity basically disappears from Guiliani's position, and there'd be no way I could support him. Or at least, the relevant complexity; he may still have more nuanced views on abortion than, say, Nan Aron, but that's of no use here.

The inescapable fact, IMO, is that issue of abortion and Roe is going to haunt every presidential election until Roe and Casey are overturned; you can say you don't think it should be a big player in the Presidential election, Ann, and on many levels I agree with that (I don't believe abortion's an issue generally within the scope of federal power, although I know you don't agree with that either), but for as long as abortion is an issue in the Supreme Court's hands, it's going to be a major concern whose hands those are. Abortion is an issue that isn't going to go away - the choice is whether it's going to be a major player in Presidential elections or state gubernatorial and legislative elections. While Roe and Casey are still considered good law, it'll be the former; once they're overturned, it'll be the latter. Surely, though, quite aside from the dictates of constitutional law, on a normative level, it's obvious that forcing states to discuss the issue and hash out compromises is far more likely to dial down the heat on this issue than is mandating an absolutist position from One First Street Northeast.

In the last analysis, I want to support Rudy, I had done previously, but if Ann's assesment is right (and if I understood her right), that's looking tenuous. It's one thing to say he'd appoint judges and justices in the mold of Scalia rather than Thomas (that is, who have a more expansive view of precedent), but quite another to say that he'd appoint judges and justices who would uphold Roe.

I can see why people slap the "conservative" label on you. This doesn't apply to all your comments, certainly, but on occassion you were using Republican talking points (see, e.g., "micro-managing the war"). That's not to say you agree or disagree with those points, but merely their use in a point-counter-point suggests agreement

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that using the same terminology as Republicans, on a topic, denotes agreement with Republicans on that topic. So your point basically amounts to this -- you can see why people call Ann a conservative, because she occasionally agrees with Republicans.

Which would presumably mean that the only people it ISN'T fair to call "conservatives" are people who think Republicans are always wrong about everything?